Forum:Rename from 1.5 to 1.4.1 is not good
The renaming of the Patch from 1.5 to 1.4.1 is not a good indication. For those with a background in software development, you will understand. For everyone else, let me explain. When the first release comes out, it's named 1.0. It's the orginial. Depending upon the amount of changes made, subsequent versions with vary in number. The more decimal points there are, the FEWER changes are made. :1.0 - original :1.1 - significant changes, glitch fixes, new items :1.1.1 - minor changes, tweaks :1.1.1.1 - trivial changes, typo corrections, changing a color :2.0 - a major rewrite, new look, new functionality The change from 1.5 to 1.4.1 means that no significant changes are being made. To me, this means definitely no PT3, no glitch fixes, no 'developer fumble' fixes, nothing more significant than the level raise and rebalancing. If you were disappointed with DLC4, you're probably not going to feel much better about the Patch ... whenever it comes out! -- MeMadeIt 09:14, October 30, 2010 (UTC) Thats what i thought too. Although, they might just want to keep it in line, as there is an 1.2.0, 1.2.1, 1.3.0, 1.3.1, 1.4.0, so the consequent next is 1.4.1. I'm a bit worried, however. Lg102 09:36, October 30, 2010 (UTC) :And not a single fuck was given. (Seriously, it's just a patch number, no need to get into full-blown discussion mode over it) AtlasSoldier 10:25, October 30, 2010 (UTC) ::Atlas, people give a fuck because that number change indicates Gearbox's view on this patch, which is to say, they seem to care far less than we'd like them to. 12:36, October 30, 2010 (UTC) ::Hey Atlas, I give a fuck and I think it's interesting. Save your trolling for /b/.GT: ConceitedJarrad XBOX360 16:39, October 30, 2010 (UTC) ::It actually matters quite a bit that the numbers were changed. As MMI mentioned, it would give the hopefuls a better albeit bleaker prediction of the patch contents. Not that hopes were very high after the wreck that was DLC4, but it's still something worth speculating about. Addendum: so yes, MMI/whoever else, here is my fuck. I am giving it to you. No offense, of course. 17:28, October 30, 2010 (UTC) ::I wouldn't be surprised if they only fix the glitched achievements and forego the leveling and any fixes we're hoping for. Beware the clap 23:12, October 30, 2010 (UTC) ::::To say they just "wouldn't do" the level cap increase is just stupid. They've given us no reason to doubt them, ever. We can bank on everything they're saying in their notes. Level cap increase and fixed achievements and whatever else. If people would stop "speculating" and read what GBX says they're going to do, we would have alot less disappointed people around here. NOhara24 01:39, October 31, 2010 (UTC) :Hey Jarrad; SHUT. THE FUCK. UP. AtlasSoldier 06:11, October 31, 2010 (UTC) :: when offended by being called a /b/ member, atlas responds with a meme. just wow. also, yeah, totally agreed with OP. I'm really sad that it looks like this patch won't fix much (not that I don't like the new rebalance or lv cap, but I could seriously have some bug fixes). And the renaming even shows that gearbox admits it isn't supposed to be much. Turco poa 07:00, October 31, 2010 (UTC) I can't help but notice that the notes accompanying the previous mentions of 1.5.0 have not been scaled back during the redesignation to 1.4.1... -- WarBlade 11:11, October 30, 2010 (UTC) Mountain out of a molehill. I have a feeling the first decimal represents the DLC number, and the second is the "incarnation" - they changed it to 1.4.1 to remind them when they released it in relation to the DLCs, mayhaps. Mauvegroove First, what MeMadeit said about the numbering scheme in the first post is absolutely correct. Second at the least we know they are going to add additional levels. To my mind the additional levels and rescaling would have deserved the original 1.5. Obviously they don't view the significance of the change the same way I do. The only thing that makes sense to do at this point is to wait and see. AdamF's info was useful as far as it went. I believe the only reason they didn't publish the exact fix list was because of the multiple platforms they may have to take part of the fix out if problems in testing/certification arise.Remember the poster of two vultures sitting on a tree branch and watching a dying man below. One says to the other. Patience my ass I want to kill something. Player8410 12:05, October 31, 2010 (UTC) :No, seriously. Patch 1.1 added support for DLC1 on Dec 9th for PC. Lo and behold, that's the same day ZIoDN was released. Patch 1.2? Added support for DLC2, released the same day. Patch 1.3, while it doesn't explicitly say "Added support for DLC3" in the patch notes, contained support for DLC3 and was released on the same day. 1.4 was released on the same day as DLC4. :Put simply, the second decimal represents the DLC it's tweaking. 1.2.1, 1.3.1 and 1.4.1 tweaked/will tweak DLCs 2, 3 and 4 respectively. Savvy? Mauvegroove : :I kind of understand what mauvegroove is saying, but i also understand the principals memadeit is getting at as well. I personally chalked up the number placement in the patch designations to represent both the dlc and the significance. Coincidentally yes they came out shortly after the release of a new dlc, but that doesnt mean they belong to a particular dlc. Remember the modded weapons fix? That was a serious issue that im glad they fixed. (but damn them the stock weapons are still going strong) idk. Maybe this will teach GB to not entrust dlc of this magnitude to third party designers when they (GB) hypes it up to be the best dlc they have released and then is released and sucks. If you (GB) want it done right, you gotta do it yourself. Heres to hoping Borderlands 2 will be awesome, if it gets made.ZomBiE 21:52, October 31, 2010 (UTC) : :The patch will be what it will be. All that really matters, and the only reason anyone round here cares, is the level cap increase. The rebalancing will probably be poorly implemented and I'm not sure how many bugs will be fixed. But the only reason this patch is so significant is the 8 levels and that will be there. Maybe the patch was too ambitious and they had to scale the number of changes back, and so they altered the number to reflect that. But tbh, isn't almost everyone here expecting the patch to be disappointing? : :Gearbox will make another RPS, whether it will be called Borderlands 2 I don't know but a sequel of some kind I think is fairly guaranteed. Sniperslinger 22:04, October 31, 2010 (UTC) : ---- I wouldn't be surprised if the rename were simply due to some sort of "conflict" regarding the bullshit a company must deal with when trying to support multi-platform titles. It's worth noting that nothing is "simple" when you have to translate every single line of intended code into 4 fundamentally disparate languages for 4 separate entities, each of which has both a physical and corporate side, each of THOSE with a veritable phalanx of copyright protection lawyers. Yes, it's "Gearbox's Borderlands," but when they move it to PS3 specifically, THAT "version" isn't Gearbox's anymore. Now, it's "PS3's Borderlands, presented by Gearbox." And the same with the 360, and Steam, and yes, even non-Steam PC (they still need to code it for the specific OS - but NOT the way Steam does it). You have to bear in mind, it's literally like walking into a different country; you're subjected to the local laws and customs, regardless of - or in some cases, specifically because of - your place of birth. You can't just say "fix the floor gap in Farmory" - they have to fix it FOUR TIMES, once for each "version" of the game, AND they have to do it such that the changes are "uniform" (ie, the texture they use to cover the floor on the PS3 has to look as similar as possible to the texture used on the 360). If they don't, the end-user feels "cheated" because "why does PS3 look shittier/better than 360" or "why can't WE have better infrastructure, clearly GB caters to X and hates Y." That's why the patch is taking so long to come out in the first place. Quite literally, they have to wait for Xbox's bullshit "certification process." It's the same crap that stymied the Monday Night Combat patch. Microsoft has their own internal process for this kind of thing, and they'll be damned if anyone circumnavigates their "regulations" - GB included. It doesn't matter if they're bullshit rules or not, the way they see it, it's a PRIVILEGE to have your game on their system. You want to be supported? You can wait. And it's like that with every other platform company too - Microsoft just happens to be the worst at it right now in terms of how long they arbitrarily make you await their pleasure. Believe me, GB wants nothing more than to get this patch to us. The customer has the ultimate power in Capitalism; WE decide if they eat tonight by choosing to buy their product. If we're unhappy, they starve. Plain and simple. So it's actually the exact opposite of "GB doesn't care." GB cares more than we do, because they're the ones who have it all on the line. They live or die by our word, and our word is fickle and finicky if history and observational trending is to be believed. They have our interest, and they want to keep it. But when in Rome, you do as the Romans do - unless you want to be exiled. No, it wouldn't surprise me in the least then, if MeMadeIt was actually right - but not for the reason he intended; I wouldn't put it past Microsoft to ENFORCE some sort of "patch nomenclature standards" bullshit that dictate this CAN'T be patch "1.5" because "not enough things got changed." It's exactly the kind of petty micro-abuse that only a corporate superpower like Microsoft could possibly both justify and get away with. It's a power game, in truth. So long as the puppet dances, the master will continue to jerk the strings, not necessarily because it's right or wrong, but simply because he CAN. Just because the 1.0/1.1/1.1.1/etc style is your experience doesn't necessarily mean jack. I've seen numerous software developers use something like 1.1.1.1.1 between software versions where it still involved major changes 10:11, November 1, 2010 (UTC) : Just because you've "seen numerous software developers use something" else doesn't mean jack either. All we can work with is how Gearbox has named their patches, and that is how it looks. 10:32, November 1, 2010 (UTC)